Again - very interesting and I do not dispute any of what you say. I have in fact, just started reading this book which is very relevant.
However long it has taken for the reality of global warning to be accepted, in the end there will not be a statement that it is 100% fact, but however close they get to that, it will be based on objective evidence, not on any hearsay! And I think you will agree with that!

Susan



drrayeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Susan,
>
> There is a grain of truth in your claim--but only
> a grain. The hypothetical/deductive method
> involving formal experimental and null hypotheses
> is unique to the sciences--but is rarely used in
> it's pure form. Seen historically, it often comes
> as a culmination of a great deal of foundational
> research which refines simple observations. Even
> then, certain requirements of the design may not
> be met.
>
> A good example is global warming. As early as the
> 18th century, there was speculation that the
> burning of wood, peat, and coal could cause the
> release of gases that could increase global
> temperature, but there weren't enough observations
> over the entire globe over a long enough period of
> time to really formally test that hypothesis. Two
> centuries later, we formed an international group
> called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change (IPCC) to carry out a global study
> measuring both temperature and CO2 concentration
> prospectively, and earlier temperature changes
> retrospectively--using data from tree ring samples
> and ice core samples. The retrospective data,
> imperfect as it was, clearly showed temperature
> cycles with a sharp upward trend in recent times.
> Using data from weather observation sites
> onground, buoys at sea, and satellites in space,
> we were finally able to present truly global
> measurements for the first time that verified the
> increases--including the sharp increase in recent
> years. At the same time, studies of CO2
> concentration showed similar increases.
>
> Unfortunately, there was no way to do a controlled
> experiment to test the hypothesis that the
> increases in CO2 caused the increases in
> temperature. Remember, that was the original
> hypothesis. Instead, we correlated the CO2 and
> temperature observations with each other and found
> an association that couldn't be explained by
> chance.
>
> So, it was "kind of" the scientific method you are
> talking about--if we just look at the most recent
> studies. But the approach was by no means the out
> of the box, step by step, process you describe.
> Worse yet, the final association documented fell
> short of the causal findings demanded by "the
> scientific method."
>
> Ray